- Apr 27, 2002
- 5,506
- 5,798
This post is filled with all sorts of ignorance
Of course they're upset black musicians haven't gotten their just do. You should be too!
You need to pay attention. They're are specially referencing album of the year not just a Grammy win.
No he isn't black that's the point!
They made a valid point that there were black artists who created great ORIGINAL works of music that were overshadowed by an album full of ripping off sounds from the 90's.
You need to separate your regular day job from someone who creates art for a living. He's blatantly ripped off parts of black music and repackaged it the same way Elvis did. The bigger issue is how the others before him aren't recognized, but here comes this non black and he's one of the greatest ever similar to Eminem who's elevated way past his talent level In my opinion. Most of his albums have been gimmicks, sub par, lacking any depth, and average.
You sounds ignorant for thinking the only way imitate black people is to say n***a or use slang while talking as if we aren't educated enough to speak any other way. You bought into the stereotype which is sad within itself.
It would be no different if it was jazz. Black people created jazz and it too was stolen by Anglo Saxon's. As far as rock and boy bands, this is a discussion on black culture so it doesn't really apply. This is part of a bigger issue that White America continues to steal, borrow, appropriate our culture without giving us our just do. Bruno Mars has benefited from this as much anyone intentionally or unintentionally (which I find hard to believe)
Hip hop wasn't created so it would be accepted by white people. Hip hop was created to be a voice of our culture and just like anything else white America wanted to be a part of something not their own. The art form was influced by Jazz and Blues two genres created by blacks. You fatal mental flaw is thinking we want to be ACCEPTED by white America instead of being RESPECTED by white America.
As far as Drake he's definitely 50% black and unlike Bruno Mars has direct connection to his heritage. People think because you send out a few tweets supporting blacks you somehow get a pass to use the culture how you see fit *****!
i didn't intend to write this much, sorry if it is a bit disjointed blame it on the fatigue...this is in response to both your own & PRIME's points:
true enough, there really doesn't seem much bruno mars could do/say that he hasn't already done or isn't already doing/saying, i can't imagine that it is really backfiring against him tho...i don't think there is a persuasive argument either way to the point it could affect how one perceives his music, which at the very least is decent if not very good...even if it is a facsimile of black music
i think bruno mars, while maybe not super innovative (which has never been the ONLY standard to judge an artist), is traditionally talented, in ways the many posterchild examples of appropriation, someone like elvis presley (who was talented, but in an unconventional way -thus easier to criticize) tend not to be; and part of elvis's appeal was that he was seen as a more appealing package to white folk for some parts of 'black' music...
although that maybe wasn't necessarily how elvis saw himself and prolly isn't how any artist who arrives at a particular sound via the influence of a culture they aren't explicitly a part of sees themselves; that the music industry seems to view 'blackness thru a non-black proxy' more salable is the part of the discussion/question that is maybe most pertinent to discuss...so it isn't really about bruno mars (elvis, or any individual for that matter), it is about a system that preferences a certain 'packaging' and often, that works against people of color generally and maybe black folk specifically (which isn't to say there aren't ways people of color in some circumstances can't/don't appropriate culture as well)...
which is unfair, but c'est la vie as the french say...that doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't want/try/hope to make the world more equitable but it is to say there the reality that is inherently unfair. to the point about jazz, i don't think it proper to say white folk 'stole' jazz (and it is rare that people don't give props to the black musicians on which the artform was built by)...rather culture & music tastes shifted, economics changed as well, the migration of blacks from the south, new opportunities for blacks, the growth of radio & recorded music, cats moving out to europe where those dudes were really lit, and it may well have been that whites had more of an interest & the means to pursue jazz (expensive investment into buying or renting an instrument, expensive lessons, expensive time commitment to practice) more so than blacks during the transition of generations?
i feel like part of why the appropriation is resonant in america particularly (which is a young relatively diverse country, in relation to the old world that has so much history and is fairly homogeneous) is the dichotomy/hypocrisy of a country that bills itself on being impartial, fairness, hard work, the diversity of ideas, rewarding excellence, meritocracy but splitting itself along ethnic lines...everyone is intellectually aware that people generally like & relate to seeing those that like themselves, but when we have people that purport to highlighting the best things produced of (american) culture and continually kinda overlooking black/people of color's contribution(s) it is at least worth talking about why there isn't more respeckt on the work produced by us?
so pointing out 'appropriation' (however salty it is to do it), can be good & necessary because it can be impetus for introspective interrogation...and in that process we ALL hopefully become more aware, learn something about, & curb our biases??? especially considering the fact that ideas, standards, & styles get accepted/championed/put down/opposed based on who is promulgating them...now that people are consuming things tailored to their tastes there may be even less discovery or serendipity, which could lead to less curiosity overall about who & how things come to us...
it doesn't seem particularly useful to talk about how and in what ways appropriating artists should apologize for their success, pay homage, compensate or contribute to 'the culture' because it could hardly be enforceable...artists make art, rarely is that art entirely original or not built off of something that came before it, and some of which is aimed at & commercially viable to demographics that are different than, the same as, or irrespective of, the creator...
i would say nelly was putting on in an artificial way singing with an accented 'country' affectation much different than his 'normal' way of speaking/singing that seems very inauthentic (from my knowledge & perspective of him) and in line with appropriation (not all that dissimilar from the 'blaccent' people were killing iggy azalea for), i think its corny but i don't find it to be anything other than an attempt at an artistic challenge/exploration (albeit one that comes with some significant potential for commercial benefit as well!), maybe he would say as much if he were to explain what influenced him to try country out?
after all "what/who are you influences" is not an uncommon question asked of artists and we'd like to think it was coming from an authentic place of inspiration, but i do think it is the case for hip-hop in particular where this question has often been answered with a kind of contempt & ignorance of the culture & craft entirely for the emphasis of the profit motive (#gettinthebag); such is their personal prerogative tho i do feel this general attitude has become more pervasive in popular culture generally...(#sidebar: if you aren't aware of who gary 'vee' vaynerchuk is, checking out his politicking with hip hop artist in particular is fascinating for its naked capitalism because the contrast is so apparent & you almost instantly ask if he would be meeting with a similar stature artist in another genre and if that artist would even entertain such a discussion? the answer to both questions is likely yes, but i think it is something you wonder...)
so while i see what you are saying and for the most part agree with your overall point, but also largely disagree with your reasoning...there are power dynamics that do influence how we see these things, isn't there a very tangible difference to how each side sees the 'majority' borrowing/taking from the 'minority' and vice versa?
in an ideal world things like appropriation and its inverse, almost, 'representation,' wouldn't matter...but given things aren't ideal you'd hope that all people would be more sensitive/understanding about things like appropriation and representation, it maybe unfair (especially to people of color given the historical antecedents) asking both folks on the 'appropriating' side and advocating for more representation side to have more imagination about addressing these things...but #itbelikethatsometimes
how are we not saying the same thing?
lets use your words:
“we conveniently forget that we saw little value in supporting those who tried to widen the appeal for our music.”
if we understood how to monetize our own culture, wouldnt we SEE the value in supporting it?
either way, both "we saw little value in supporting..." and "we don't understand how to monetize..." premises seems fundamentally distorted as relates to cultural commerce; both statements assume that these things would affect a tangible difference in a broad sense, when it is entirely possible, even likely that both would result in music (or culture more broadly) being basically exactly as they are now because neither monetization or support = control -to the extent culture can be even be 'controlled,' no one knows who is at the wheel (also why grand conspiracies, while not impossible, are hard to fathom for me)...
other groups are not successful in the states by writ of how they 'control' or monetize their culture or how they support those that disseminate it, rather they form tight knit communities, that provide networks of trust that support each other not cultural artifacts...instead we could asks why those with the means to build a sort of infrastructure of black business/wealth did not or could not? why haven't we built closer, stronger, tighter communities? what & why did tastes narrow in such a way that only certain representations of blackness were shown and/or deemed acceptable? it may well be that part of the answers to those questions have to do with some failing(s) of what is deemed 'black' culture but i'm not convinced that is the deciding factor...

